Letters to the Editor: Nov. 10, 2013

Loved that article by the Earth Lady on the bobcat in the Daily Journal on Oct. 11. What a beautiful animal! It is surely cute enough to make you want to tickle its tufted ears. Thank you. However, there is this unsettling subtext of man’s constant infringement on nature at every turn. We think ourselves to be the controller of this magnificent living, breathing, over changing yet ever remaining (seemingly) life-sustaining ball in space we call Earth.

There are serious consequences to ignoring the delicate balance of nature. We are now able to pursue extending life for man to 120 years. What a milestone of technological wizardry we have attained. Does it make sense to spend enormous amounts of resources on prolonging life beyond the natural end while killing the unborn (abortion) before it can begin? Should we remember that we are only stewards of this marvelous world and that Mother Nature will exact her dues?

Seven billion and counting require space, food and water to live and eventually there will be none. Today we have food fights. Tomorrow we will have fights for food. Just thinking.

Ilona Bauer

Tupelo

–––––

The spirit of Obamacare resides with the demons

Democrats in Congress aren’t getting sufficient credit or recognition for the most significant legislation they passed in the Modern Era. Perhaps the “short” title of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” should be changed to the “Democrat Takeover of Medical Care Act”. Also the moniker “Obamacare” gives too much credit to a single individual who obviously didn’t read the legislation before he signed it. So in the spirit of where the act came from and to where it takes our country, perhaps the new moniker for the “Democrat Takeover of Medical Care Act” should be “Dem-onic Care.”

Think about it.

Richard Warriner, DDS

Tupelo

–––––

No defense merited for mess in Capitol

Seventy years ago, about mid-night on Columbus Day, I, along with a number of other young Americans, were struggling to cross an Italian mountain stream, the Volturno, 50 yards wide, neck-deep, and cold, with the added attraction of German machine-gun fire.

We were there, because we loved this country, and believed in the government that had sent us there. I spent more than two years over there, and in some difficult situations.

Today, I would not step across the smallest mud-puddle in the state in order to defend this mess in Washington, that we are forced to call the American government.

There are over 500 politicians, many, nothing more than selfish, greedy corporate shills, lounging on soft leather, who do not deserve the honor of being called, “The Congress of,We, the People.”

We are being ruled by an administration, that continually tromps our Constitution into the slime, and, one, which I believe will go down in the books, as the most corrupt administration in this nation’s history.

Recently, someone made the statement, online, “Our Forefathers, who gave us this Great Country, were geniuses. The people, now running this Great Country, are idiots” Amen.

Post navigation

Politicians come and go. We have a mess in DC today but it’s time we put things in perspective. In our past, we’ve had local, state, and federal political leadership who supported human trafficking, suffering, and death within our own borders. We’ve endured Civil War. We’ve gone through the Great Depression and our latest deep recession. We’ve seen horrendous corruption, inclusive of child labor. I think we can work through health care legislation and taxation issues, if we but work together.

TWBDB

Seventy Years Ago – – my father was also in WWII. He too told me of the faith he had in the government of the day and how it was bringing a promise of prosperity to the people. Here’s a bit about that government so loved then.

The New Deal

Main article: New Deal

President Franklin D. Roosevelt came to office in 1933 amid the economic calamity of the Great Depression, offering the nation a New Deal
intended to alleviate economic desperation and joblessness, provide
greater opportunities, and restore prosperity. His presidency from 1933
to 1945, the longest in US history, was marked by an increased role for
the federal government in addressing the nation’s economic and social
problems. Work relief programs provided jobs, ambitious projects such as
the Tennessee Valley Authority were created to promote economic development, and a social security
system was established. The Great Depression seemed over in 1936, but a
relapse in 1937-38 produced continued long-term unemployment. Full
employment was reached with the total mobilization of US economic,
social, and military resources in World War II. At that point the main
relief programs such as WPA and CCC were ended. Arthur Herman argues
that FDR restored prosperity after 1940 by cooperating closely with big
business,[56]
although in 1939, when asked: “Do you think the attitude of the
Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?”
the American people responded “yes” by a margin of more than 2-to-1.[57]

The New Deal programs to relieve the Depression are generally
regarded as a mixed success in ending unemployment. At the time many New
Deal programs—especially CCC—were popular. Liberals hailed them for
improving the life of the common citizen, and for providing jobs for the
unemployed, legal protection for labor unionists, modern utilities for
rural America, living wages for the working poor, and price stability
for the family farmer. Economic progress for minorities, however, was
hindered by discrimination, an issue often avoided by Roosevelt’s
administration.[58]

The New Deal consisted of three types of programs designed to produce “Relief, Recovery and Reform”:[59]

Relief was the immediate effort to help the one-third of the
population that was hardest hit by the depression. Roosevelt expanded
Hoover’s FERA work relief program, and added the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Public Works Administration (PWA), and starting in 1935 the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In 1935 the Social Security Act (SSA) and unemployment insurance programs were added. Separate programs were set up for relief in rural America, such as the Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration.

Recovery was the goal of restoring the economy to
pre-Depression levels. It involved “pump priming” (greater spending of
government funds in an effort to stimulate the economy, including
deficit spending), dropping the gold standard,
and efforts to increase farm prices and foreign trade by lowering
tariffs. Many programs were funded through a Hoover program of loans and
loan guarantees, overseen by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC).

Reform was based on the assumption that the depression was
caused by the inherent instability of the market and that government
intervention was necessary to rationalize and stabilize the economy, and
to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. Reform
measures included the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), regulation of Wall Street by the Securities Exchange Act (SEA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) for farm programs, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance for bank deposits enacted through the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, and the 1935 National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) (also known as the Wagner Act) dealing with labor-management
relations. Despite urgings by some New Dealers, there was no major
anti-trust program. Roosevelt opposed socialism (in the sense of state ownership of the means of production), and only one major program, the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), involved government ownership of the means of production (that
is power plants and electrical grids). The conservatives feared the New
Deal meant socialism; Roosevelt noted privately in 1934 that the “old
line press harps increasingly on state socialism and demands the return
to the good old days.”[60]

The New Deal’s record came under attack by New Left
historians in the 1960s for its pusillanimity in not attacking
capitalism more vigorously, nor helping blacks achieve equality. The
critics emphasize the absence of a philosophy of reform to explain the
failure of New Dealers to attack fundamental social problems. They
demonstrate the New Deal’s commitment to save capitalism and its refusal
to strip away private property. They detect a remoteness from the
people and indifference to participatory democracy, and call instead for
more emphasis on conflict and exploitation.[61][62]